Why didn't your child apply to Oxford or Cambridge?

[ZeroSomeGameThingy]

www.theguardian.com/education/2014/may/27/oxbridge-state-school-numbers-falling

Given that most people who apply will not get in - there's no shame in an unsuccessful application. So what are the real reasons for this apparent reluctance?

I like you style zero .

I actually think when a child takes their options, there should talks at school about the future impact of those choices.

I think every child should have a meeting with their parents and their tutor/mentor to discuss those options.

And I think the tutor/mentor should be obliged to tell the truth and not peddle the shizzle so many are fond of eg that all qualifications are equivalent, that it's useful to take 12 GCSEs, that it doesn't matter if you take double science, that taking GCSEs early is a good thing...I could go on!

What might be achievable is an open compulsory talk / video for year 7 and repeated with more information year 8/ year 9 etc by an external university person ( with a balanced view of Oxbridge and other options) plus written handout of how to get more information. The schools should also nominate an Oxbridge mentor for children who are interested and that mentor should have access to advice from Oxbridge if they have no experience of that system.

An Oxbridge tutor here (who came here from a bog-standard comp - it changed my life, and it breaks my heart that there are sufficiently talented kids out there who might benefit, in all sorts of ways, from our type of tuition and are put off applying by myths rather than realities). For anyone with Year 7s onwards who think they might be interested in Oxford and Cambridge and what we offer, you might steer them towards this user-friendly website (especially the section on "top tips"):

staircase12.univ.ox.ac.uk/

I was just about to make a point but virelai has, effectively, just made it for me.
All this hand-wringing on behalf of the poor, disadvantaged souls is very nice. But, in the internet age, anyone who has half a brain cell, knows even a vague bit about education and has a smidgen of curiosity can easily find out the basics. They can also find how to access People Who Know.
If they can't do this then they aren't really Oxbridge material!

Thank you for the link virelai. Do you teach your name btw? That must be a lovely life.

Think you're being a little harsh senua. I suspect, for children with absolutely no support, by the time they pluck up the courage to actively investigate stuff it's probably too late to "bring themselves up". What's the use of twelve A* if you genuinely have no clue how to conduct yourself in an interview or respond to even mildly challenging questions? Or if (as in one of my favourite plays) you research an area of philosophy but mispronounce its name? People do need real life support as well. The earlier the better.

TheWordFactory - the issue of schools peddling propaganda to the ignorant about equivalences in public examinations is sadly not confined to the UK. French schools do a terrific job in storytelling too .

Of course, DC like ours trust their parents not their teachers to help them make the best choices. But so many DC don't have parents who can navigate the web of lies and half-truths...

What's the use of twelve A-stars if you genuinely have no clue how to conduct yourself in an interview or respond to even mildly challenging questions?

You've changed the question. You started off talking about why pupils don't even apply. You are now talking about getting through the interview process.

Another question might be 'Why the MN obsession with Oxbridge?'

I am an LSE alum and earlier this year I went to a tall given by the Director. In my day LSE took a large number of bright students from the state sector, wput off by the complexities of applying for Oxbridge and the trad reputations of places like Durham.

Now LSE attracts students from across the world and offers arguable the best economics course in the UK. However it is really struggling to recruit state school students particularly from the North. Perceptions that cost of living will be too high and student life more limited. The fee regime has exacerbated this as less well off students need to save money where they can.

I don't have stats but remember seeing a table which suggested Universities like LSE and Imperial now have relatively high proportions of privately educated students within their UK cohort, though the proportion of UK students has fallen dramatically since I was there. (It was only 50% then.)

Given London colleges, apart from one or exceptions (Coutauld, Kings?) have not historically been perceived as Oxbridge fall backs, perhaps interesting to understand why the have such a big problem in attracting northern state applicants and which factors also apply to Oxbridge.

One factor, I suspect, is that courses like economics have become very maths heavy so this is what leading courses are looking for. Difficult if you are at a school where maths teaching is wobbly. At the same time, international/EU competition for quantitative courses has increased so for many courses including maths and engineering A* in further maths no longer cuts the mustard. Cambridge in particular is often looking for high STEP levels/scores as well. Not surprising if potential students who feel their schools wont be able to support them, decide not to bother.

Needmoresleep - from my vantage point (Paris), LSE has the reputation of being a finishing school for cut-throat globalised youth who want to make a killing in the City. That may or may not be true but if it is enough to scare off some of the Parisian teens from rich and powerful families that I see, I am sure that image is a killer for British youth from Northern comps.

Maths teaching at my private school was "wobbly" Need. I was consequently rejected by LSE (the parental alma mater.) But that was in the old days when OxB had a get out of jail free card...

I can't speak for the whole of MN - I posed the question because I found the Guardian article somewhat inadequate. I wouldn't say I'm obsessed with "Oxbridge" - having, in the past, lived and worked in one and lived, studied and worked in the other they do form some of the background to my life. Also, though I came from an educated family I was still the first of my kind at the place I studied - and I don't seem to have paved the way for any followers... (I'd like to know why - I wasn't that terrible an undergraduate.)

So - I'm interested in other people's experiences.

Bonsoir It's shocking isn't it ?

senua I think that's completely unfair. I don't see why we should expect kids of 12/13, taking their options, to be expected to disbelieve what their schools are or aren't telling them...

Sorry senua - between laptop and phone I missed your . I guess what I meant was that as soon as an "unsupported" teen starts investigating they're likely to read or hear about the "terrifying" application/interview process. That alone might put off someone who hasn't grown up with some knowledge of it. Without personal guidance they're just as likely to come across negative as positive stories and be left very afraid of doing the wrong thing. And thus decide not to apply at all.

It's a scandal, and it's an international scandal. Keep the ignorant down .

it breaks my heart that there are sufficiently talented kids out there who might benefit, in all sorts of ways, from our type of tuition and are put off applying by myths rather than realities

This.
I have experience both with Oxbridge and another cut-throat Uni mentioned earlier. I've seen much more children coming from really wealthy families at the latter (they were still bright children nevertheless).
Oxbridge is not exclusively old boys' club and you don't need to be superhuman to get in there. You don't have to be rich in order to study there - once Oxbridge accepts you, they will do everything to keep you (and your talent!) there. The amount of money dedicated to students who struggle financially is incredible. I know students who financially struggled and none of them dropped out because every single one of them were offered financial support when they raised the issue. There is a whole network of people and institutions both on college and Unviersity level whose job is to make sure that students get financial aid they need.
It's really hard to break common misconceptions about it. I do my best to encourage young bright people to apply and believe in themselves and am really happy to see that some of them made it.

Why the MN obsession with Oxbridge?

Exactly, but to be fair it is not just MN, much of the media and certain politicians are obsessed with them

I know this is outside of the OP, but it would be far preferable IMO to stop putting Oxbridge on a pedestal as the pinnacle of achievement and started treating it as one of many good universities.

Oxbridge won't ever be inclusive whilst it seeks to maintain its exclusive status.

TBH I think all the same problems occur in all of the most selective universities.

In fact, many of them have a big problem with their private/state school ratio.

Oxbridge gets t in the neck, but that's just due to their profile. Plenty of other establishments accept they have a problem; LSE, UCL, Imperial, Durham, Bristol...

creamteas And to be fair the schools are too. It has become shorthand for academic excellence in their marketing, state or private. So a school could be excellent academically, near the top of the league tables (for what that is worth), and sending it's students off to courses at other universities that outperform those at Oxbridge or are very comparable and yet there will be a collective questioning of their record / what are they doing wrong. It results in unfair pressure being put on those students who want to make the choice based on the course rather than the name. My older DD applied for Cambridge because the course is good and what she wanted but my younger daughter wants to study a joint honours combination they don't do at Oxbridge and also moved schools at 16 because she has learnt she performs better and gains confidence in a less pressured environment, she dismissed Oxbridge without having to give it much thought. However she had a phase when her decision kept being questioned by Form Tutor, Head of Sixth Form and Head, I can't speak highly enough of how that school has encouraged her, built her confidence, educated her in the widest sense and really brought out the best in her. Their hearts are almost always in the right place but the pressure to have more Oxbridge scalps made this the one instance where it hasn't been.

Well, when I applied to Oxford, I was a bit put off by the different-ness of the application process (the whole applying to a college, having to go up and stay there overnight during school term time in case you were to be interviewed by more than just your first choice college, the icy cold room I was put in with only a bar heater to keep it warm... already becoming a thing of the past once I actually got there - lots of money has been spent on accommodation in Oxford colleges in the last 25 years). However, once I started there, I got to see the advantages of the college system: my college had mainly fantastic accommodation (and mine was particularly comfortable, with shower room next to my underfloor-heated bedroom, and kitchen facilities for my use opposite) and other facilities, all heavily subsidised, right in the centre of Oxford. I could walk to every venue I needed to get to. An awful lot of opportunities were offered to me on a plate either for free or for very little money - I was overwhelmed by the number of opportunities each separate college could offer its students without expecting them to cough up more and more cash to pay for them. What's more, I was lucky and had a succession of excellent tutors and thrived under the tutorial system. I have extremely fond memories of my time there and the inspirational people who took the time to be interested in my opinions and to share their own with me.

I did not find Oxford an overwhelmingly expensive place in which to live. It was considerably more expensive living out for a year, though, significantly less luxurious, and definitely did require ownership of a bicycle. Living out meant I had to pay for accommodation in Oxford all year, not just for term time, but it was pretty easy finding work there, even within your own college (they paid you surprisingly well to work as a college scout in the holidays, cleaning the bedrooms and toilets of the conference guests! I'm sure that sort of work wouldn't have paid so well elsewhere!!!).

Obviously, I had friends who were not nearly so happy with their time there - I agree with whoever it was that said it can be a bad thing if you do not see eye to eye with your tutor. Also, some people did find it pressurised and wished they had chosen to go elsewhere - again, I think it depended on your subject, your tutors, your choice of friends and extra-curricular activities, and your personality. It is by no means the best place for everyone, it can definitely chew some good people up and spit them out, but it cannot be denied that it does have a lot to offer.

As for the other people I was at Oxford with - I met people from a whole range of different backgrounds and nationalities.

I wouldn't change the choices I made for myself for the world - it was the right choice for me. I am not convinced it would suit both my children, though. I will, however, if they are interested, make sure I help them research what Oxford and Cambridge have to offer these days, as I'm sure it has changed from the Oxbridge I applied to when I was a teenager.

Senua I am shocked at your post which I am afraid does smack of ivory towers. What of the clever kid who suffers self esteem and motivation issues because they are bullied for being a geek or who has never ever conceived of the width and depth of subjects you can study at university especially in areas just not covered at their schools or who is worried about not being a burden to their parent or how the parent will manage without them or has a parent who positively objects to their ambitions or a host of other problems that arise as a result of poverty and deprivation. I have heard all of these worries from young people involved with both mentoring charities and properly targeted university outreach schemes and there is no solution to these problems online. An organisation that introduces you to peers with the same problems and students and people who are progressing their careers who have overcome them and helps equip you to overcome them is not hand wringing, it is what is helping motivate bright young people to get to good universities including Oxbridge now. Otherwise you just progress around schools giving worthy talks or hold conferences at unis which reach only those who already have the motivation to go online, you don't tackle the underlying issues that restrict people's ambitions and horizons. I have often wondered what sort of pupils you get on those Oxbridge open days / conferences that are open to children from state schools and just what sort of difference they make to widening access compared to more targeted mentoring projects whether run by unis or charities. Certainly at my uni the evidence has shifted, recognising that sort of activity is more appropriately aimed at marketing to all potential students, in favour of initiatives that heavily involve students going into certain targeted schools and other organisations with a view to not just opening up minds to the possibilities but also longer term mentoring.

One of my DDs applied to and was offered a place at Oxford, but turned it down in favour of LSE. Part of it was simple economics (cheaper to have me a few stops away apparently ), another the ease of getting PT work in London, together with work experience in her field and, finally, she didn't 'feel' Oxford much anymore, having been at boarding school in the city, giving her a been there, done that vibe.

She, two years in, remains so pleased with her choice and wouldn't change a thing.

DS is 'thinking' about it, but is more keen on London and Newcastle, so I expect he'll be more likely to leave it.

I went to Oxford for an interview. I'd applied with no support from my school and was the only sixth former applying to uni that year. I turned up for my interview and found the whole process ghastly. Getting to Oxford cost my parents every penny of savings, I had to wear my usual tatty clothes as we couldn't afford new. I know I looked scruffy and unkempt.

During the interview I felt one of the interviewers was a bit sneery when he asked me if I really had read Dostoevsky as mentioned earlier by me. All in all it was my absolute dream to go to Oxford but from start to finish it reminded me that I was too poor and too far on the wrong side of the tracks. I'm delighted that things seem to be slowly changing. I hope.

However, I'm now working with a fantastic youth group from a deprived area who have had the worst start in life. Despite managing to get into uni and get a good degree none of them can secure interviews let alone jobs. Not being part of and aware of the system really affects chances, despite the availability of online information.

cg Two questions: how long ago was this and what specifically do you think might have made it a better experience for you? Just one helpful person in your own school? A different school altogether? What would have given you more confidence about what you had to offer?

This was 20 years ago. Things that would have helped were support preparing for interview. Being a child carer meant that I wasn't able to banter or show the best of myself during interview. Support at school would've been great. Also, importantly some self belief would have helped. The most daunting part was walking to interview in beautiful surroundings knowing I looked and felt out of place.

Ok - next question: if you had/have clever children or nieces/nephews when do you think you would want to start preparing them - so that they could apply with confidence?

zero - yes, it is a lovely life (if you like that sort of thing!) to be paid to teach and research medieval literature of various sorts.

I agree with all those who have argued for supporting Year 6-10s who show the necessary potential to make informed choices based on realities rather than myths. As Shootingatpigeons suggests, much widening participation work is now starting to work with school pupils before they get to Year 12. I'm running a mock-tutorial in a few weeks for some Year 10 pupils who are considering studying my subject at university.

I always try on open days to warn pupils that they should think about whether they want to choose Oxbridge, as well as whether it might choose them. Do they want to be taught in groups of two or three? Do they want to have to write one essay (at least) per week? Do they want to be given a lot of freedom to choose their own topics and approaches (but with a great deal of personal advice and attention)? Do they want freedom from continuous assessment? Do they want to choose our rather traditional courses? That won't suit everyone, but I think it's important that that kind of tuition, at a very high level, is available to all who think it might be right for them.